Mastin Labs has released a new collection of presets for Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop that aim to emulate the look of three iconic Kodak film stocks.

Titled 'Kodak Everyday,' this new preset pack includes film emulations for Kodak Ektar 100, Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak Tri-X 400 film stocks. In Mastin Labs' words, this 'pack has three distinct looks: bright and vivid, gold and lush, or rich black and white tones.'

Tri-X 400 preset photographed by Quinton Cawthon

In addition to the base presets that come in the pack, Mastin Labs also includes toning profiles, custom white balance settings, and grain settings that replicate 35mm and medium format film grain structure. 'Our color science recreates the micro-contrast of real film for a clean, three-dimensional look,' says Mastin Labs on its product page.

Ektar 100 preset photographed by Bisual Studio

Mastin Labs says the presets are color-calibrated for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm X-series cameras (except for the X100). If you're using another brand camera, Mastin Labs suggests using the Canon preset, which will give you similar results with only a 'slight reduction in accuracy.'

Comments

Bit late to this thread but here are my findings:I use both companies offerings but not the everyday pack yet.Mastin imo are the closest, most natural one click presets but they only seem to work in good light and are best on sunny days which is probably how they were designed.(400h - weddings etc).VSCO also don’t work for everything and do seem overly heavy on contrast and saturation, and therefore require more work. Overall they are a bit more powerful due to the extensive tweak options.I find some images look better with Mastin, some with VSCO and some with my Fuji’s jpegs. Ultimately, there is no one solution for everything.

I haven’t had much luck with Mastin presets unfortunately. They work great on my T4i. But on my a7rii they just look cartoonishly orange and sickly green and the contrast is way too high. VSCO > Mastin Labs. Because while neither look like real film, at least VSCO looks the same from camera to camera.

Tri-X 400 never looked like that, its far too contrasty and rich. Even at it's most over exposed, Tx400 always had a fairly flat 'crushed black' vibe. That example in the post is totally off, but ironically I absolutely love it so go figure!

I've been working in video post production for 10+ years and also shooting film for about 15 years. Since working on film simulation of my own I still have tonnes of hybrid samples. So just out of curiosity I decided to get Mastin Labs Kodak Everyday package and test it against real film and other popular simulations.

My Kodak Ektar is shot with Canon 1v and digitised on Fuji Frontier, while its digital counterpart is Canon 5DIII.

- For obvious reason I am not very impressed with this product. - Only 3 looks - Feels like a poor VSCO copycat (and we all know VSCO simulates god knows what)

Please note that I am aware that your observations and equipment may differ. I am just sharing, no need to comment on this unless you are a complete Yake or Jerwin or any other incarnation of Kirk Mastin.

First of all, as you're calling me an "incarnation" of Kirk Mastin, you've established yourself as a LIAR. I have absolutely no connection to Kirk Mastin other than owing a few of his presets. So your willingness to outright LIE in public is now a clear, established thing.

Someone expert on this topic could ask you for all of the technical details of your alleged Ektar scan and your digital shot. However, as I'm not expert on this, and as I don't trust you to be honest anyway, I really don't care to hear your answer.

I don't even own these new presets. I just thought I would put in a good word for Mastin as I've had great experience with his older presets. My punishment for this is that I get accused of being the owner of the company. It's really shameful how some people just make up lies. I can't tell whether they're just lying because they are LIARS who like to lie, or whether there is some agenda behind their lying.

Interesting. RNI looks pretty close, VCSO and Mastin similar to each other. But... to me, the original looks more like Portra than Ektar, and the VCSO and Mastin versions look more like Ektar than the RNI :-)

It’s a fool’s errand, this stuff. Far, far too many variables and indeed constraints. Personally I’d suggest using Alien Skin Exposure X3 for this sort of thing, as it includes a Raw processor designed from the ground up for film emulation, the presets are as good (or not) as anyone else’s, and they’ve been doing this for way longer than the rest.

I’m a Mastin user! I own several of the preset packs and love every single one. Mastin has been crucial in helping me develop the look I want my images to have. Over 35 couples have hired me to create photos with that look at their wedding this year. I started shooting medium format film last year and it when it comes to matching my digitals to my film, there’s just not a better preset out there than Mastin. Mastin Labs was developed with a deep knowledge of and respect for film, and I learned SO much about film just by being in the Users Facebook group for over 2 years before I started shooting it. That’s because Kirk loves film. He’s introduced thousands of people to film. People love his presets because they’re easy to use, and because Kirk is so helpful in teaching you how to use them through the videos on the ML website. Kirk is the opposite of the film snobbery you see in this comment section.

Gold 200 was an industry joke back in its day because everybody knew it was cut from the ends of other emulsion runs. Kodak admitted this to me and even their reps bad mouthed it. Basically marketed to little old ladies at Cosco. Gold 100 was superior in all aspects although skin tones ramped a bit too the pink side. Still better than G200s green/yellow cast that was made worse if printed on Fuji vs Kodak paper.

If it wasn't for VPH being the worst emulsion of all time Gold 200 would hold that crown. Also remember Kodak didn't produce a 400 speed print film worth shooting until the 2000s, so if you wanted anything faster in your $65 point and shoot 200 was it. Once Kodak dialed in a decent 400 speed print emulsion starting with Porta 400 Gold 200 vanished. Anybody who claims G200 scans well doesn't have a scanner nor the skills to really distinguish how bad this film was.

I'm 29 and have boxes and boxes of these films in the fridge - picking up my 10 developed rolls from the lab today. Us youngin's are doing our part. (; It's a blast being able to emulate these stocks with digital - makes digital look less clinical and blah without overcompensating.

I'll also say that my experience with these emulsions is mainly limited to 135 format and I never saw such contrast & resolution in Tri-X in this format. Seems that it's a much better experience if using large format (4x5 sheets or larger) from some examples I can find online.

And this highlights a big problem with declaring these "definitive" simulations of film emulsions. So much of the look of the image was dependent on the format of the film, chemicals, and development process or the inversion process (filters, paper/enlargement size, chemicals, development time) to a positive (or scanning) that there's so much variation in our own personal experiences as to what "Kodak Gold 100" or "Kodak Tri-X 400" ought to be to come to a consensus.

I'm sure one could do the careful profiling work under specific conditions; very meticulous and time consuming indeed, depending on how many variables you want to examine.

I use a lot of film presets because I prefer the look of film. I am not interested in color accuracy. Film manufacturers have long known that customers do not like accurate color when they shoot landscapes or people. They tend to have bias toward certain colors and that's why their films are chemically doped to have that "color" look and it's also to establish their "trademark" look hence having earned their "names" in selecting film rolls.

With the DSLRs having the ability to capture just light and their software having the final say on how the colors are rendered, they also have their "look" as well - Canon tend to look more flat and plastic while Nikon tend to be more punchy and contrasty. When processing through Adobe Raw, it attempts to "normalize" all different brands into one common profile. Do I want the Adobe profile? No. I prefer film presets.

As a result, I often use film presets in my develop module. They just look much better and more appealing.

I can understand the interest in color negative and color transparency film presets for those who wish to recreate the "look" of (properly exposed, developed and printed) traditional emulsions. However, digital presets for B&W film seem a bit pointless.

If one wants to achieve the generic "look" of Tri-X...rated at an Exposure Index of around 320 (very few experienced photographers set in-camera or handheld meters to 400), developed in HC110/dil.B (Kodak's suggested dilution for a popular developer for Tri-X), exposed using the typical center-weighted metering patterns of the day, and printed with the more common condenser light sources (not a cold light) on something like Oriental Seagull or Ilford Gallerie...then I suppose a digital preset will get one pretty close.

Most film photographers who developed and printed their own work back in the day went for a more individual "look." The point of using B&W film was to achieve a personal vision, not some generic "look."

I was a film photographer "back in the day", developing and printing my own black & white film. Today, some great looking black & white presets completely satisfy my own needs for black & white photos.

Jerwin...I always used a densitometer to measure film density at the lowest and highest values for B&W film/developer/time/temp combinations.

Most Kodak films required lower-than-advertised Exposure Indexes to yield printable densities in the lower values, and retain sufficient detail in the deepest shadows. I always rated Tri-X below 400, usually around 320 or 280, sometimes as low as 200, depending on my meter.

For some reason Kodak's published development times were usually overly long, yielding too much density in the highest values, resulting in blown out whites with little-to-no texture or separation. Consistent and restrained agitation was also critical.

Steve Anchell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" provides a good starting point for B&W film development times. But testing and densitometer measurement is the best way to establish one's individual EI and development times.

The fact that we're emulating Kodak Gold 200 should say something about the sad, sad state of the raw processing platform which these "preset packs" utilize.

I pity the hipster who thinks that Kodak Gold 200 is something you'd want the final result of your high-end raw digital workflow to look like, after you've spent hundreds of dollars on the raw workflow, and many hundreds / thousands on the camera gear.

I also pity the hipster who think that this Ektar 100 emulation looks like the actual film. (but then again, we all know that the buyers of these films WANT that muted vintage fade, NOT accuracy.)

The Tri-X 400 is fine. Then again, if you think you're a REAL hipster, then the joke is on you for not BESPOKE-ING IT YOURSELF. Grab that old film SLR you undoubtedly have, put a roll of Tri-X 400 through it, take the same shots on your digital camera, ...then just tweak the tonal response in the HSL and RGB curves in LR...

Nasty attitude aside, it does seem odd someone would want to emulate the appearance of Kodak Gold 200. As for color accuracy, not even digital users want this all the time (or ever, in some cases.) I used to think Velvia was at the pinnacle of "pleasing" color inaccuracy, but digital has pushed over the top color saturation to levels not dreamed of by film users.

I was hoping that my / tags would indicate a more light-hearted tone to the obviously sarcastic comments. I totally understand that some people are just looking for new creative tools to use. My "vices" as far as creative tools are concerned are just as mock-able as anyone else's. Feel free to laugh at me and call me snooty for being so cliche as to adore Capture One Pro and despise Adobe Camera Raw. ;-)

Having said that, ...yeah. Kodak Gold? I remember buying rolls of that stuff. It was, literally, the film you bought from drugstores, when you knew the pictures you were going to take would never be printed larger than 4x6. It was barely a step above shooting a polaroid.

@Yake, hey, we're all part hipster, if we're into photography and even remotely interested in film or film emulation.

The type of hipster I mock, though, is the one who thinks they're being cool by spending way too much money on something that they could do themselves for cheap. The joke is on the millennial-hipsters who think they're being unique individuals, when really they're just a new type of lemming.

If I'm gonna go retro or get back to the basics, or whatever it is that makes a hipster a hipster, then I'm gonna do it myself, for cheap. Maybe I'm missing the mark with respect to what makes for a stereotypical hipster, obviously, but that's just my take on this particular trend / style in general. It's cookie-cutter retro DIY.

You say "nothing like" because you're unfamiliar with the presets. They actually look quite a lot like the namesake films. Also, the presets specifically emulate the look of the films on a Fuji Frontier scanner.

I'm basing my opinion on a) the posted images showing what the presets look like, b) the fact that I shoot and develop all my own colour and black and white film. You seem desperate to defend this company...

Desperate? No. Just super happy with a few of their past products, and now seeing them unfairly criticized. Mastin puts a lot of work into making these presets look like the real films, but specifically as they would look in a Fuji Frontier scanner. So if you process & scan your films in a different way, they will likely look different.

There are grain settings for 35mm and 120 however they are limited to what can be achieved in lightroom. Kirk has mentioned this and reminds us that nothing can replicate film perfectly and is a huge proponent of shooting real film.

You do realize that Kirk Mastin (the developer of the presets) and his team shoots hundreds upon hundreds of rolls of the real filmstock in countless lighting scenarios and with all skin tones, and then digitally emulates it, and that it truly does match the tone, grain structure, and contrast of real film?

Hey @esorensen, not sure if your comment was directed at mine? I've watched a lot of live edits with Kirk himself and while tone and contrast are more easily emulated, the emulation of films grain structure is limited to what can be achieved in lightroom. I've heard him say that himself. Film grain is organic and has many variables and even more in black and white, with factors such as developer, film stock, agitation patterns, temperature contributing to its look. So while the presets get you close, they are still limited by the fact that the image is derived from a digital sensor and will never be exactly a film replicate. I'm sure if you reach out to Kirk he would be more than happy to explain any questions that have not already been answered in the faqs. You could even check out some of the live edits on the web. Peace

Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no need for *exact* replication of real film grain. The limitations of Lightroom are perfectly ok for me and close enough — by far. Back in the years when I used film, the *exact* structure of film grain never mattered to me and wasn't a thing I cared about or wanted to analyze. It was just there, and the less of it that I saw, the better. I have about as much interest in getting *exact* emulation of film grain as I have in getting exact emulation of bad agitation, dust, scratches, water spots, etc.

1. Some serious film photographer, doing scanning, that wants to augment his film work with digital, and get the same result. This might be motivated from a pure commercial standpoint. The digital workflow is so much easier, and therefore so much more profitable.

2. Film worshippers, for which a Tri-X lookalike image is sacred. One that can give an arm and a leg for something that looks like Provia. If that is what gets him going.

3. Plug in junkies that collects whatever tools that are out there to make interesting pictures. Be it from DXO or Mastin.

I have to admit, I resemble 3. I am more into a nice looking grain than a authentically looking Tri-X grain.

@Roland Karlsson, I too am probably in your # 3 category of "plug in junkies". I think presets/plugins/etc. are fun to use, creative catalysts, and efficient shortcuts. I guess some people here would call me a "hipster" ... but that seems to be a meaningless throwaway word, a vague substitute for whatever one actually means to say.

@ZeBebito, Thanks for the recommendation, but I already bought my Nikon F3HP in 1986 and had the proper film experience back then. I had the FM and FE before that. Today I would much rather use "film-look" presets. Am I a hipster?

There are some confusion here. And I must admit I was one of the confused one, that also might have added to the confusion. But, I got information from Yake, that, I think, is one of the few here that is not confused :) Maybe the only one.

So - what is this product really? What do Mastin really do?

Mastin is scanning test photos taken with the films they want to make a profile for with a Fuji Frontier scanner. Those scanned pictures are then the targets you want to achieve.

Then Mastin is making profiles for a set of cameras so that those cameras will achieve the same result as using the film and then scanning with the Fuji Frontier.

This sounds like a great deal of work to do. And very useful for those that need it. Those that have a workflow that use this scanner and also have one of the profiled cameras.

I guess almost no one posting here needs it though. They just want a plug in that can add a cool filmlookalike result.

" What do Mastin really do" - they dupe people. It's a scam."Then Mastin is making profiles for a set of cameras" - actually they don't bother profiling their presets to the cameras, see product page and samples posted by others below. "This sounds like a great deal of work to do." - this sounds like an attempt of creating a VSCO ripoff in order to make some cache. And without investing the same amount of hard work the result is predictably poor.

So Kirk Mastin logs in under a number of fake accounts including @Yake, @jerwin, @Roland Karlsson to name a few and tries to create an illusion of genuine support which looks just silly.

@JameOl, I have some choice curse words for you right now, but won't use them as I don't want to get banned. Let me just say this, in the most polite possible way: YOU ARE A TERRIBLE LIAR. I'm not Kirk Mastin. And neither are the other people you mentioned. I've never met the guy and have no connection to him. But I do use some of his original products (not the new ones announced here). I paid for full price for them and they are damned good.

As for genuine support, there's no need to create any "illusion". Mastin has a genuine Facebook community with 43,000 members and 85,000 likes. Apparently none of them are commenting here, however, and that's just as well! No need to get down in the mud of ignorant accusations and weird conspiracy theories.

P.S. I criticized Mastin below for using the Kodak trademarks. The same goes for other preset makers. IMO, there is no way that using actual trademarks (owned by Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, etc.) would pass in a court of law.

I have no idea if the software is good or not. I have not used it. I just wanted to correct a misconception. And then this blatant attack from a total stranger. Sorry @JameOl, your first impression was not a good one.

Also, I just wanted to confirm that I'm Mastin either:) This kind of topic really doesn't seem suitable for the dpreview forums as this website seems mostly concerned with gear and such, and diving into any comment thread here unfortunately is full of toxicity.

No one is going to force you to use the presets, or sell off your newly acquired gear in exchange for film gear. It really all comes down to artistic preference. I have many film cameras and and recently digital one too. For me it's film when it matters and digital when the job calls for it. Remember the bulk of photographic history was created on film. Trashing it and writing it off as an inferior medium is being somewhat ignorant.

Way overpriced! Can't see, why DPR is featuring these kind of Film preset types.

Even doesn't include a decent program. Being bored by too many me too guys, which are just creating presents for LR, ACR, and selling these for way too much money.

Many of them think, they can make fast money with this. It's the new pest during the past couple years onto the web - a usual preset seller, not too time consuming, but much income, when enough guys buying it - instant delivery of the few kb by mail or just as a download.

No offense, just my thoughts about this in general. ;-)

Addenum:

The Google Nik Collection (last: 1.2.11) does feature also Analog Efex Pro 2, for your (color) Film Simulation needs, and even Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 here included does feature some (b/w) analogue Film Simulations. Still being avialable onto the Net as free download for your Freeware needs. ;-)

I have had bought the Nik Collection before Google, and even the Google Collection years ago.

Suppose you shoot Ektar 100 and Fuji 400H in your film camera, and you also shoot a digital camera and you want the digital to closely match the Ektar 100 and Fuji 400H scans. Or, suppose you used to shoot those films and loved them, but switched to all digital for business reasons. Now which setting in Nik Analog Efex Pro 2 is going to match Ektar 100? And which setting is going to match Fuji 400H? Nik Analog Efex Pro 2 is a truly wonderful tool, endlessly fun, but I see no presets to match those film scans.

The idea that you can just match a digital shot to an arbitrary film shot is frankly bonkers. Colour neg film in particular changes markedly depending on over or under exposure, colour temperature of light etc, in ways that digital does not. That's part of the appeal of film. Also why you'd want to match Ektar to Pro 400H I don't know, they're like polar opposites to one another, super saturated with a tendency towards blues vs neutral saturation and flat with a slight leaning towards green. A completely different look. Any serious photog wanting consistency in their film colour across speeds would shoot either just 160NS & 400H or Portra series films.

@LightPriority, You misunderstood. My comment was not about matching Ektar to Pro 400H, but matching Ektar to Ektar. In other words, matching a digital shot with an Ektar preset to a scan of Ektar film. And just because you may not be able to match every possible exposure situation (over, under) doesn't mean there is no point in trying to match a normal exposure. You can say the effort is "bonkers" because you haven't done it.

How do you know what I have and haven't done? Anyway while I'm glad you're not trying to make polar opposite films look like each other, I still find the whole notion of trying to make digital look like film a specific film bonkers when digital and film produce such different looking end results. If you like saturated contrasty images then fine, but don't call moving some sliders around in Photoshop Ektar because it isn't and your or their idea of what an Ektar image looks like might be completely different to mine because of the analogue nature of film and how the shooting, development and printing process changes the colours.

I'm admittedly no expert on this topic, but have watched a number of Mastin videos and can see that some commenters here have a complete misunderstanding of how the presets work. Mastin presets do not move "some sliders around in Photoshop". First, they work in LR, not PS. Second, Mastin developed the presets to mimic the actual film scans that he gets from his own Fuji Frontier. He shot a ton of film, processed it, scanned it, studied it, etc., to develop the presets. The printing process is irrelevant to the quality of the presets because the presets don't make a print. Of course, you can print the preset-applied digital files just as you would the film scans. Third, I've seen enough side by side examples of real film and past Mastin presets to know that they do a remarkable job. This was a few years ago with the older presets; I trust his new products achieve the same level of quality.

LOL. People use Gimp. Many of them. At home or not at home. Mom's or not mom's. The question is why anyone interested in photo editing would not ALSO run Gimp (and it's many add-on friends); along side anything else they have?

I do shoot my DP2M rarely, and when, lowest ISO. Get Tri-X 400 Film Look with the Abandonware, Google Nik Collection 1.2.11 onto the various Freeware Sites on the Net. Does feature also way more analogue Film Simulations.

Speaken of Tri-X, Kodak TX400 is essentially the same Film, and one roll is always being loaded into my Contax 167mt. ;-)

Of course, it can physically be done with LR ... because it is done with LR. But can you closely emulate an actual film with less than, say, 50 hours of work? Consider the time to shoot a variety of scenes, develop and scan them, analyze the results, and program very high quality emulations for a variety of cameras. You'll need at least a Fuji Frontier, Noritsu or similar scanner. If you can do that, and want to do that, knock yourself out.

Those are the scanners that the pro film labs use. They are efficient and deliver good results. The point of these emulations is to get the digital to closely match the actual film scans that a pro film lab would deliver if you shot film and digital of the same event.

@GetItsJoel Haha. How long would it take you to shoot many rolls of film in a variety of situations, get them processed, scanned and delivered, study hundreds of photos for the various properties of the film in depth, then program presets in Lightroom to match the film as closely as possible, etc.? Try it and see. Good luck doing it in less than 50 hours!

I have to agree with The Deviator. Assuming today's Gold 200 is the same crap I have in my library of film, then it scans just fine. Get rid of the yellow cast and it even looks decent.

I only used it in the past when traveling when I ran out of film. I mostly settled on Reala, which was a beautiful film that scanned really well. The worst film to scan was Ektar 25. It suffered from fine white speckling effect. I believe Royal God 25 did too.

"And the kind of consistent color results I get from my digital camera when I print from a print service today, I never got even close to with Gold 200 and the print services back then."

Yep. What I find amusing with film enthusiasts and zealots, who are typically young hipsters, though it also applies to most holdout film veterans from the film only era, is that getting great results from film in the past was very difficult and expensive. For most photographers it was essentially impossible. Even for those with the money to afford the best lab services you still couldn’t come close to matching the precision and range of adjustments that can easily be made today with film. That's all due to digital. It took digital to get the best out of film. Scan the film and you can make it look however you want in seconds.

But even with the help of digital it is still inferior to digital, and grossly inferior in the two most obvious areas of image quality, resolution and noise.

From the article: "Mastin Labs says the presets are color-calibrated for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm X-series cameras (except for the X100). If you're using another brand camera, Mastin Labs suggests using the Canon preset, which will give you similar results with only a 'slight reduction in accuracy.' "

"calibrated for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm X-series cameras" — I wonder how they can be simultaneously calibrated to such fundamentally different cameras all together without individual camera profiles?

Your Canon shot would look similar to the actual film. Your Leica shot may look good too, but may be less true to the actual film. As far as I know, Mastin doesn't make presets for Leica. Leica is a niche market, and the 2006 M8 is a very small subset of that niche market. A lot has changed since 2006, even in the Leica world.

I can see emulation color photos to some degree that it is similar to the original film look. But for B&W no way - film is and will always be a different medium than digital, and even the digital filter might resemble general contrast of Tri-X 400 well, it does not take into account for example highlight effects only seen with film, neither the effect of different film development methods which change contrast and tonality.

I finished film developing with HP5+ developed in dilute semi-stand in Rodinal on my Hasselblad 500CM. Beautiful tonality and sharpness which is a different tonality to developing HP5+ in my other fave dev, HC-110. Tri-X and Plus-X in rodinal is derrent to a development in D76. I had a similar experience developing colour negative film. Film sims are pretty loose.

If you want the film look, shoot film, you'll get a better and more rewarding result instead of this gimmick.

@Wye Photography, Mastin makes a brilliant HP5 emulation. It doesn't pretend to emulate the variety of developers out there. But it does emulate some particular developer that Mastin chose (I don't know which). I happen to love the results and it's many times easier than using the actual film.

I think emulating negative films is nonsense. It always depended more on the printing lab than on the type of film how the images looked like. The differences in color where huge when I ordered prints in different labs, with identical negatives!

Absolutely wrong. The point is to emulate good processing, not the range of processing variations possible; that would be a wasted effort. Mastin works from Fuji Frontier film scans and knows what good & consistent processing is.

There is a free (!) program, called Photoscape. It has some built in film simulation presets. They work no worse then these... I'd say even better, because you can vary their strength. And Photoscape authors don't ask $99 for their program :)

There are several film simulation packs out there. They usually simulate a whole bunch of films and also have some settings you can change so you can get a huge set of fantasy films. Quite nice tools actually if you want to personalize your result.

This pack only has three Kodak films with no settings, if I get it right.

No matter if this simulations are good or bad - seems to be quite poor value for the money anyhow.

You still have all of the settings in LR available and can use the presets as a starting point for many variations. The other simulation packs that I've tried are more fantasy versions of films. Mastin is the only one that I've tried that does it right.

You misunderstand the product. The product doesn't emulate a paper print. It doesn't emulate any print or any particular printing paper or "personality" you would get from a print. It emulates what you get if you shoot film and scan it with a Fuji Frontier. If shooting film and scanning it with a Fuji Frontier were actually a part of your work, then the presets would offer you a very reasonable, practical and accurate alternative/supplement that you can use with your digital cameras. The scan from a Fuji Frontier is a very known process to Mastin and others who use it.

Then we only have number 2 left as an unknown. You need to calibrate the digital camera somehow to eliminate that.

Now, of course, I am not the target of this software. I have no need for this simulation at all. I have no such work flow. And I have no means of judging the quality of the product either. Maybe it is brilliant :)

I then have a followup question, if you do not mind.

There are zillions of film simulators, both in smartphone apps and in software for your computer. Loads of them. Not to talk about the film simulators in Fuji cameras.

What do they do? Also mapping to Fuji Frontier? Or are they doing some magic approximating using an imagined film based work flow? Or is it just fantasy? Like adding some yellow, contrast and grain if the film is known for that?

Calibrating to every digital camera out there would be highly unrealistic. Mastin offers calibration for camera brands, presumably based on models that are popular with wedding photographers. So there are some differences between the Nikon, Canon, etc. The goal isn't perfect 100% exact emulation. The goal is a high quality emulation. I think the ones I've used succeed brilliantly.

I can't speak to what zillions of film simulators are trying to do. I just happen to know a little more about Mastin's than most people commenting here, even though I've only used a few of his products. Mastin emulates the Fuji Frontier because that's what he actually uses for his color film-based photography (not sure what he uses for b+w). I gather he really likes it, so his goal was to replicate that with digital. His business grew out of a personal desire to create something that would serve his workflow.

You don't need a workflow with a scanner for this to be useful. It is generally usable — if you like the look, that is. My explanation about the workflow is what I gather from having seen a number of Mastin's videos in the past; my info isn't specific to the latest presets, and may be out of date.

Mastin creates presets with hybrid shooters (film + digital) such as himself in mind. But the presets also appeal to all-digital shooters such as myself: people who like the look of certain films, but don't need to match any actual film scans (because I don't shoot any film).

Hmmmm ... I understand the value of this plug in if you are replacing your old Frontier work flow. Then it is invaluable. Maybe it also is useful if you have another scanner work flow. Scanners are probably linear.

But - if you just use it because it gives nice results. Then maybe something cheaper and more versatile also gives nice results.

Again, it's not to replace a Frontier work flow. The original presets were made for hybrid shooters who are shooting both film and digital. So the presets are not replacing a Frontier workflow. They are supplementing it.

I use some older Mastin presets because they give nice results — for some pictures. That's it. It's an expense, but not terrible. I also use other presets, actions, plugins, etc., including Alienskin, DxO Filmpack, Totally Rad, SilverEfex, Analog Efex, A Fist Full of Bolts, etc. They are simply fun creative tools. They have different purposes for different photos. Often they are just a starting point for further adjustments.

Huh? What "quick test" did you do? You bought the presets and applied them to the raw file of that image? You shot film and digital of that scene, then applied the presets to the digital, then compared the results side by side?

These presets emulate real film, which does not have a "strength adjustment". Film is 100% film all of the time. There is no film that is less than 100% film.

But somebody made a plugin to adjust the strength of LR plugins, if you really want that.

I don't have these presets, but past Mastin presets are definitely no scam.

I'm curious to know how you applied the preset? If you've used Mastin labs in the past and watched any of the live edits you'll understand it's not a one click pony. Choose the desired preset and correct version for your digicam, then adjust exposure, white balance, tint, grain, lens correction, and any tone profile if needed. All this along with using the most advanced component of all.. YOUR EYE!

From my personal experience Mastin's presets are not really scam, they do actually work but for a slightly limited range of subjects and conditions. Naming them after film stocks could be a bit of a stretch but they can be your workhorse if you just shoot weddings, they can make pictures taken in daylight look nicer.

That's the perfect way to test.Really, what use is to get some badly tuned instafilters? Do they expect people to pay up for some old brand name, connected to some skewed colours that look right only on some massaged marketing photos?Again, thank you @Sannaborjeson for the comparison.

@MiraShootsNikon Thanks for the +1. My point is that Mastin makes a really good product, based on my personal experience with his past products. Past presets have been meticulously developed with real digital & film comparisons of the same scenes. It seems that some commenters here are just taking cheap shots based on total ignorance of the actual product. They really aren't being fair.

I realize the presets are expensive, but a lot of work goes into making them as close to the actual films as possible. Mastin isn't just dreaming up imaginary "film looks". He has the Fuji Frontier and develops the films and studies the scans. I don't think he'll ever do a Kodachrome emulation because there is no way to process the actual film in color today.

@Yake: nobody who "liked" @Sannaborjeson's or @MarkNeumann87's posts was ever, even remotely, in the market for Mastin's product. I guarantee it.

(I also guarantee neither of those two jokers actually "tested" the product. So many lies. Le sigh.)

This post found 20 people wanting to lash out at the concept of "film presets" for whatever rando reason. There's no greater way to misunderstand Mastin's product than to lump it in with ancient DxO filmpacks or some other hipster "filter" snakeoil, but internet comment threads are a mob culture of moron dopamine, not of truth or good taste.

And DPReview likes it that way. The game is engagement quantity, not quality. Just posting the word "film" here guarantees the clicky-clicky of a thousand bored knuckledraggers with dull axes to grind.

Meanwhile, Mastin's client list reads like a "who's-who" in top flight fashion and wedding photography. Publication cred is off the charts. It's the literal antithesis of the dreck that goes on in here.

Funny to mention „snake oil”, „knukle draggers” and „lashing out” when the proof is in the proverbial pudding. Namely, puddin' a photo thru those filters:https://preview.ibb.co/evvQ2T/mastin_compared.jpgThe ones lashing out and acting like knuckle draggers are exactly the ones not coming up with side-by-side examples, and instead just attacking the others.Rude behaviour when someone puts the proper light on the named snake oil product... And, just in case you think that replying rudely does something: we know how to come down to your level too, don't worry: Circle-jerk yourselves boyz, we already saw what the product does.

@Barbu You've reposted the link that I questioned above. Note that Sannaborjeson, who originally posted that link, hasn't answered *any* of my questions about that link. It's not clear wether the Raw file of that one photo was "put thru" any of the just released Mastin presets. But even if it was, the "proof" would only be in actual real film shots of the same subject. You need both film and digital shots of the same subject made at the same time in order to judge the accuracy of the presets. The presets claim to match the film, so if the presets match the film, that's the only proof that matters.

So ... where are the actual real film shots of the same subject taken at the same time, so that we can compare them to the presets? Eagerly waiting for your answer! Or Sannaborjeson's answer. Somehow, I don't think Sannaborjeson did the actual comparison test, but I could be proven wrong.

Sorry but if you shot this in film, your results would likely be the same. Is that a bad reflection of the preset or the film? I think its a bad reflection on the photographer. Lack of knowledge is your shortcoming.

In the film days, you chose a film stock based on your subject matter and learned the film and how it worked to make it look optimal. Mastin Labs even gives you some ideas on how to shoot with particular "stocks / presets" by listing what it works best with.

Some photographers who shoot film and use Mastin Labs, created PDF's to help get the best maximum effect of using both. I've seen numerous people in the Mastin Lab forums post that their results don't match what they are seeing from other people. When I post up the link to Jeremy Chou's http://www.jeremychou.com/pdf/Mastin_Labs_User_Guide_Jeremy_Chou_Photography.pdf guide to shooting Fuji, they finally get it. Its as much about how you shoot as it is about slapping a preset on.

There is a category of computer users that pick Apple because that's actually the tool that best fits their necessities.And then there are vast mases of Mactards that spend ridiculous amounts of time and effort to evangelize the fruity brand, mostly to convince themselves that their wallet wasn't robbed just to have a hipster toy.Much like the current situation: „trolls”, the ones that try to convince others that some bad filters are actually worth more than $0.5 ;)And the mistake: even after being shown proof of what those horrendous filters do, they still try to throw dirt at people.Anyway... http://cubeupload.com/im/Barbu64/IMG20180718104456.jpgBoy, I hope you have a hat. Bon apetit!

@Yake, he didn't. Nobody believes he did. If he picks up an upvote or two, it's just people lashing out against . . . something? Who knows what their deal is. Who cares?

I guarantee that this thread's self-appointed antagonists were never, ever in the market for something like Mastin's system. Nor are they capable of dissuading anyone who is.

Is anyone really going pay attention to "Barbu," twenty posts deep in the ninth circle of DPReview comment hell, instead of actual photo samples from Tanja Lippert or Jeremy Chou? Of course not. And Google doesn't index these threads, so it's not like someone who searches for "Mastin Labs" or "Hybrid Photo Processing" is ever going to bump into Barbu's tantrum ( . . . that somehow evolved into an unprovoked tirade against "the category of people" who use Apple products? I'm just shaking my head, man.)

Wow, found at least two correct points:- yes, not in the market for horrendous color filters that make the skin look positively worse than on a leper- time to jet indeed, no point opening eyes to the ones having more wallet than gray matter.

@Barbu, Exactly as I thought ... now it's perfectly clear that you did not test the Mastin presets. And that you can point to no actual testing, no comparison with photos made with the actual films. You're just trashing them, calling them "horrendous", based on absolutely ZERO personal experience with these presets. In your defense, you posted a link to a photo of some random rolls of film ... what the heck for? You are the very definition of a troll.

@Sannaborjeson, It's been six days since you claimed to do your "quick test" of the new Mastin presets and since I asked you to explain how you did that quick test. I am still eagerly awaiting your explanation. Are you really so busy that you can't reply?

It's actually yellow, and yes Kodak Gold 200 looked like that. I’m guessing they still sell it and that it still does. It was crap film when I had the unfortunate displeasure of using it many years ago and it contributed to many crap family photos all around the world.

@DonDown - Yes...this is a horrible emulation. Rather than mimicing the actual film, which was a warm based film emulsion, it emulates the improper lab output of the time. Gold 200 is a slightly warm emulsion that when properly handled gave decent skintones and general saturation. Modern labs can handle it very well. Scans fine for me on an Epson V700, Minolta Scan Dual IV and Imacon 646.

It’s simple to produce the general look of film on digital cameras. Just shoot high ISO RAW on a mediocre lens, don’t apply luminance noise reduction and don’t apply any sharpening or very minimal amounts. The cherry on top would be to then print to traditional photo paper and have either blown out highlights or crushed shadows. There you go, the look of film prints from back in the film only days.

Cranking iso on a digital camera looks absolutely nothing like film. Not sure what he was doing to blow highlights or crush blacks all the time...sounds like lack of user knowledge more than anything. When I have challenged people like Phil to emulate the films I use, all of a sudden excuse making starts and no samples are posted. For all the claims from people like Phil (or any of his other user IDs) as to how simple it is to emulate film...they never post any samples. Guess in reality it isnt that sample at all.

Sure it does. But you have to do what I said and be objective. The objective part excludes film zealots and trolls like you.

"Not sure what he was doing to blow highlights or crush blacks all the time.."

Hey I'm right here 👋 So tell me Mr. Deviator, how did the automated labs back in the film only days deal with high contrast scenes if not have to choose between one or the other?

"When I have challenged people like Phil to emulate the films I use,..For all the claims from people like Phil (or any of his other user IDs) as to how simple it is to emulate film...they never post any samples"

Well Mr. Deviator/Troll that's because your usual deviating and trolling self always tries to change the argument to suit you and not what I have actually said. I never mentioned trying to emulate a particular film, now or in the past. I've only mentioned the general look of film.

"Actually, it's not so easy, I've been doing a series of side by sides of digital versus film, and try as I might I can't make the digital look like film."

Perhaps you lack the skills. Do as I mentioned and you'll at least have the general look of film. Trying to match colors of particular films is hard if you are not skilled at dealing with color adjustments. My advice is to stop trying to match the look of particular films or film in general, and enjoy the superior image quality of digital.

Yeah, I can do a straight scan of a piece of film, or spend forever trying to emulate the look of film (which subject matter experts will tell you can't be done perfectly). Now, there are a couple of reasons film can't be emulated:

1. Noise and grain are physically different, and they look different. Granted, you can produce fake grain in post, but, dialing up ISO will give you noise, which IS different to grain.

2. Film handles contrast differently to digital.

3. The sensitivity of film (when recording dark and bright parts of a scene) is non-linear, unlike digital.

In short. They are different.

Of note: my side by sides, I've done blind tests, and people prefer the film images (as do I).

I'm sorry for the non-technical language, but I trust people understand what I'm saying.

PS. Your "advice" sucks. I'm an artist, not whatever on Earth you pretend to be.

PPS. did you ever wonder why many of the really high end wedding photographers still shoot film?

Film will always be different and not 100% emulated. I think Mastin knows that better than anyone. It's the reason many Mastin users shoot both film and digital, because even the best emulation doesn't fully replace the film. They appreciate the advantages of both. And then there are those like me, who only shoot digital and feel the emulation is a really nice option to have, whether to apply straight up, or as a starting point.

"Agreed. Like I said...recreating film is so easy for Phil....he just cant ever show his results to back it up...LOL"

As usual you are deviating again. I said the general look of film. In the past you have asked me to try and match a specific film. As usual you try and change the argument to something that is easier for you to support. I'd be happy to show you examples of what I have actually said. Of course I can’t do that in this thread since images are not supported.

Wait ... I think you forgot some film expenses of the "scan yourself" scenario. Take film to lab or ship film to lab. Pay for shipping. Or process at home (more time) and pay for equipment and chemicals. Have a place to keep that stuff. Buy a scanner. Set up & learn scanner. Spend your time scanning film. Spend more time removing dust, etc. from scans. Make that a part of your wedding/portrait work flow? Not for me.

Costs nothing to take a digital photo. No doubt you'll respond with something along the lines of "you can buy a cheap used film camera, yada, yada, yada..." Well, you can also buy a cheap used digital camera, yada, yada, yada... 😉

Film is a medium. The cost argument is like one painter criticising another because oils are expensive.

But sure, let's take a sideways step. You shouldn't shoot wet plate, because wet plate is expensive. You shouldn't shoot 8x10, because 8x10 is expensive. You shouldn't purchase any digital body with a price point greater than $1,000 because... You shouldn't buy Zeiss/Leica glass because...

You people seriously have no clue how absurd you sound.

I shoot film because it gives me a particular aesthetic, which digital simply will not give me.

The funny thing is that Don Komarechka, who just happens to be one of the most technically advanced photogrpahers in the world, respects film and those who shoot it. But you...I guess you really are nothing more than a worthless troll.

Does this provide presets for the kind of unique "look" one would usually get when having one's Kodak film developed and printed by one of those poorly-maintained one-hour minilabs, operated by some untrained 19-year-old high school dropout, down at the local corner drug store?

To accurately recreate the results of the typical Kodak Gold color film development and print processing back in the day, this needs a C41 Chemical Contamination preset, an Incorrectly-Calibrated RA-4 Color Balance preset, a Wrong Time and Temperature preset and a Poorly-Trained MiniLab Technician preset.

The looks are that of the current popular labs that run tight chemistry. I've seen other presets tho that crush the blacks or move the black point to a muddy grey giving images the underexposed disposable camera look which is unfortunately how many people remember the look of film.

Looks like that's EXACTLY what they did; instead of finding something like a few reference shots somewhere. I've shot a little Gold 200 and would suggest this is a fair way off my recollection.Well picked up !

These do look like genuine stuff in a good way. The problem with shooting actual film these days is that it's expensive, and, well, in some places you can't even get them processed at all, much less with decent quality. Gold 200 is an interesting film but where I live, the processed results have always been terrible. I'm guessing since nobody really uses film anymore, they use really old chemicals. (I haven't tried in a few years so I'm guessing it's even worse now.)

I still find it odd that nobody seems to take note of my personal favorite - Portra VC. Even the Portra presets form the link above are just the regular current mixed Portras.

Hey Sam, the problem with photography in general is that it is super expensive. As for processing and scanning, if you go online and search for some film labs you will find that many have an order form. Fill it out and mail it with your film. Then you'll have your film processed and scans sent via download link. I hope this solves the "there are no pro labs near me" problem for all.

It's about 2 EUR per shot for me. But the film camera I currently use cost me 100 EUR. I'm gonna spend about 800 EUR on a film camera I actually want.

But my main digital camera with a single lens was 3300 EUR, and that's a tip of the iceberg. I don't even want to add up all the costs. But I'm sure I could shoot film for another 20 years for that money. :-)

Interestingly, I see people carrying film cameras regularly here. Not sure if that's just a local fad or what. Plenty of good labs as well and a few places that sell old film cameras. There's one that has almost whole OM system for sale, including the monster lenses. That was drool inducing :-)

It seems that film is having the same revival that vinyl enjoys now (big consumer electronic retailers here have vinyl sections that are almost as big as CD sections).

Those all look really good and I like that "film look." Still, most of the time when I experiment with the DXO film presets that I have I end up not liking the look. The color options seem to make skin tones look very weird...

Maybe these ones are better or maybe I'm just not choosing the best ones... or using them in the best possible way.

Hey PhilDunn, there's been a pretty big desire for Mastin's presets this in the high end/fine art wedding market. As most people here probably don't know, a lot of the top wedding photographers are shooting on film and these presets help match their digital work to their Fuji Frontier film scans for a cohesive look. Not the everyday pack, but definitely the Fuji 400H and Kodak Portra packs.

I'm not a film fan at all but if wedding photographers are selling the look of film for a job then that is all they should be using. It is disgustingly unethical to do that while also slipping in digital images with emulations and passing them off as film.

Who is passing off digital images as film? I don't think anybody is. The ones who shoot both digital and film ("hybrid shooters") are open about it as far as I know. The presets let their digital look like their film, helping them deliver a consistent style. Shooting only film is very expensive today, and there are no good color films over ISO 800. I don't shoot any film, but I like the look for some images. Presets like this save a lot of money and time, and deliver much better processing controls than film.

You wanna deliver a consistent product to your client. 100% film for the whole day may not make sense in all lighting situations and budgets. As for unethical, would it be disgusting to shoot a digital photo in color and convert it to black and white and pass it off as a black and white photo? Some film shooters don't even advertise that they use film as a medium as it is irrelevant to their clients as they are hiring the photographer based on their body of work.

@Jerwin - True. It is about consistancy. I used a number of film emulators when doing weddings, lifestyle shooting and portraits. My mainstay films were Fuji Pro 400H and Portra 400 and 800. About 80% of my shooting was film based. As light dropped, I would use the DSLRs more. While the software only gets one about 75% of the way to film look...it is often enough to better integrate the shots into the workflow. Nothing to do with cheating or ethics...not sure how one would come up with a reply like that.

Tri-X looks an awful lot like that preset. I'd almost think they were emulating the emulation. Never understood film presets. Got a few packs back when Capture One was giving them away and I still tweaked my settings after I used them.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.